Talk:PDF (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Any opinions on whether this article should be at PDF (disambiguation) with PDF re-directing to Portable Document Format?? Georgia guy 19:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is better, Portable Document Format is the most common meaning, I think.--Patrick 22:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PDF is also short for Planetary Defence Force -- 16:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


shibatch ssrc has an option to select noise p.d.f:

--pdf <type> [<amp>]       select p.d.f. of noise
                             0 : rectangular
                             1 : triangular
                             2 : Gaussian

Does this have to do with Probability density function or some other pdf?

I actually study noise for my math thesis, and the pdf you described is the probability density function Leoisiah 11:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irish Army Reserve, Permanent Defence Forces[edit]

Hi J-beda. Nice job on tidying up PDF (disambiguation) - it looks much better.
However, I am a little puzzled by your change of "Permanent Defence Forces (Ireland)" to "Irish Army Reserve, Permanent Defence Forces".
P.D.F. is an abbreviation for "Permanent Defence Forces (Ireland)".
(Presumably the abbreviation for "Irish Army Reserve" is I.A.R.?)
Can you explain your change? Thanks. pdfpdf 11:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) piping should be avoided in disamb pages. j-beda 06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anywhere in the Irish Army or Irish Army Reserve where they reference "PDF" or "Permanent Defence Forces" - should they even be listed in the disamb page? j-beda 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your search was not thorough.
I found PDF used in the following six places:
However, although I found "Permanent Forces" used, I couldn't find "Permanent Defence Forces" used in either of those two articles. (See Irish Defence Forces for use and definition of Permanent Defence Forces.)
I didn't write either of these articles; I have now tidied them up a bit.
You wrote:
The Irish Army is sometimes known as the Permanent Defence Forces, in contrast to the Irish Army Reserve.
P.D.F. is sometimes used as an abbreviation for the Permanent Defence Forces of the Irish Army Reserve.
No, I'm afraid that's not the case. The Irish Defence Forces consist of the PDF (which comprises the Army/Navy/Air Corps) and the RDF (Army Reserve/Navy Reserve).
I've changed the above to avoid piping, but please note, the MoS says that piping should be avoided, not that it must be avoided. pdfpdf 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated Pdfpdf 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Request for consensus Overtaken by events?[edit]

JediLofty's POV[edit]

User:Pdfpdf reverted my edit of 11:08, 6 September 2007 with the summary "Revert vandalism. User:JediLofty has been involved in absurdly lengthy discussion where he admits he has NO knowledge of the subject matter, yet continues to undo edits of those who do." (sic)

My edit was to remove the third link on the page that pointed to Probability density function. We had a discussion some months ago where Pdfpdf insisted that the phrase Probability distribution function should remain (despite pointing to a redirect page to Probability density function). I gave up on that argument (my argument about maintaining the manual of style fell on deaf ears). Today I removed a third link: p.d.f. is frequently used as an abbreviation for probability density function which I thought was redundant, as the page itself is a disambiguation page for the abbreviation PDF, and it is already linked to twice. Can I have get other opinions, please? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pdfpdf's POV[edit]

It seems to me that this disagreement is about interpretation and application of the Manual of Style.

For the style guide for interior links, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).
See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

It seems to me that JediLofty's POV is: "The MoS MUST be applied to the letter".
My POV is: "The MoS is a guideline. There are cases where it doesn't seem to handle the situation. This seems to be one of them."

I believe my POV is supported by the statement at the top of every MoS page. viz:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed, but it can have exceptions; use common sense when applying it.

To be more specific: There is a statistical tool referred to by many as the probability density function. Many other users of it refer to it as the probability distribution function. A third and much larger group avoid this ambiguity by referring to it as p.d.f.. (Note: Not as pdf, nor as PDF, nor as P.D.F. They refer to it as p.d.f.)

Hence, there are (at least) three names in "common" use for this function.

It seems to me that JediLofty's POV is: "On a disambiguation page, there must be one, and only one, link to this information."

My POV is: It is one piece of information that has (at least) three different names. It would seem to me to be silly to have three separate pages with different names but identical content. It appears to me that the people who created these three pages thought this also. Hence, the information appears on one of these pages, and the other two redirect to it. Which page has the information? It doesn't matter - it's an arbitrary choice. The important thing is, clicking on links to any of the three pages gets you to the information.

So, logically, they are three separate pages. But phyisically in WP, it doesn't make sense to represent the information on three separate pages; physically in WP they are one page and two redirects.

My POV is: "The disambiguation page should contain all three names".
It seems to me that JediLofty's POV is: "Only one of these three names should appear".

I disagree with JediLofty's POV because the one he would choose is based on how the information happens to have been represented on WP, and it removes the other two names from the disambiguation page. An abstract representation of the information would include all three names.

Pdfpdf 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This matter has been discussed previously, at GREAT length. The discussion is at Talk:PDF (disambiguation)/JediLofty's reversions

Overtaken by events?[edit]

First, I think I've come up with a way to keep both of us happy.
Second, I have come across new information which (it seems to me) completely changes the situation.

I have changed PDF (disambiguation) to incorporate both of these. I believe that I have managed to do it without using redirects and multiple links, which (if I understand correctly) is what you wish to avoid.

Could you please review the page and advise if it now satisfies your requirements? Pdfpdf 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, I think we finally have a page we can agree on! ;-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been pointed out (by User A1) that the limitations and vaguaries of WP should not get in the way of "the real world". (I have been known to make the same argument myself, but seem to have become distracted when addressing this particular topic.) The fact of the matter is that the real mathematical / statistical / probability experts seem to divide into two camps on what a "Probability distribution function" actually is. Accordingly, I have change the Probability distribution function page to reflect this. Pdfpdf 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cleanup according to WP:MOSDAB[edit]

I put the comment here:

and removed these:

Widefox; talk 19:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

كيف حالك يا محمد (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]